(1.) WHETHER during the pendency of contemplated departmental enquiry a retired civil servant can be denied retiral benefits? Is a question of law required to be determined in this appeal. The finding of the learned Single Judge returned vide the judgment impugned in this appeal has been assailed mainly on the ground that mere pendency of departmental enquiry against a retired employee would not entitle the State or the employer to withhold the retiral benefits.
(2.) SOME of the facts giving rise to the filing of the present appeal are that the petitioner who rendered 34 years of claimed meritorious government service retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31. 10. 1978 but on the plea of pendency of some enquiry was not paid retiral benefits. It transpires that in August, 1974 the petitioner who was an Executive Engineer was sent on deputation to the respondent-corporation and held the charge of Rori Lining Division No. 5 from 15. 9. 1974 to 25. 1. 1977 and was thereafter transferred to the head office of the respondent-corporation till the date of his retirement. After his retirement he was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 7 of the Punjab Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1952 on 4. 11. 1978 in respect of some accounts irregularities alleged to have been committed in Rori Lining Division No. 5 during his incumbency on the work pertaining to lining of various water courses executed on top priority basis to achieve the fixed targets. The petitioner submitted vide his reply dated 17. 11. 1978 that the allegations contained in the charge sheet were false, fictitious, frivolous, baseless and arbitrary and untenable in the eyes of law. The Government conceded to the plea of the appellant and withdraw the charge sheet served upon him. However, on 21. 1. 1981 a revised charge sheet with respect to the same allegations was served upon the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Rule 2. 2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II. The allegations were appropriately replied on 6. 2. 1981 but no action was taken till 15. 2. 1983. On 15. 2. 1983 the respondent-State again dropped the revised show-cause notice. It was further alleged that the Government unnecessarily delayed the sanctioning of pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner is Stated to have made various representations, annexed with the writ petition as Annexures P/4 to P/19, but with no effect. However, after over a year of the decision to drop the charge, the respondent-State sanctioned full pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity to the petitioner vide its letter dated 2. 3. 1984 and conveyed the same to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with the direction to release the amount to the petitioner after with-holding a sum of Rs. 2470/- from the gratuity for having stood surety for an official. The Accountant General, Haryana with-held a sum of Rs. 2470/- from the gratuity of the petitioner as per directions of the Government. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition in this Court praying for the grant of relief directing the respondent to pay to the petitioner the difference of emoluments for the period 1. 7. 1977 to 31. 10. 1978 accrued to him on his having been permitted to cross the efficiency bar vide Annexure P/20, release salary of the petitioner for the month of October, 1978, pay him the amount with-held from the gratuity and interest on the delayed payment at the rate of 18 percent per annum of pension, gratuity, cash payment in lieu of unutilised earned leave, difference of emoluments, salary etc.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge agreed with the submissions of the respondent-State and vide the judgment impugned in this appeal held the petitioner not entitled to the grant of interest in view of the stand of the respondent-State and the submissions made at the bar that respondent No. 3 was contemplating to file a suit for the recovery of the loss suffered by it on account of the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner while on deputation.